This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2013-04-11 |
SERENO, C.J. |
||||
| As one of the three (3) independent constitutional commissions, COA has been empowered to define the scope of its audit and examination and to establish the techniques and methods required therefor; and to promulgate accounting and auditing rules and regulations, including those for the prevention and disallowance of irregular, unnecessary, excessive, extravagant or unconscionable expenditures or uses of government funds and properties.[68] | |||||
|
2009-10-27 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| It is true that the general rule is that before a party is allowed to seek the intervention of the court, he or she should have availed himself or herself of all the means of administrative processes afforded him or her. Hence, if resort to a remedy within the administrative machinery can still be made by giving the administrative officer concerned every opportunity to decide on a matter that comes within his or her jurisdiction, then such remedy should be exhausted first before the court's judicial power can be sought. The premature invocation of the intervention of the court is fatal to one's cause of action. The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies is based on practical and legal reasons. The availment of administrative remedy entails lesser expenses and provides for a speedier disposition of controversies. Furthermore, the courts of justice, for reasons of comity and convenience, will shy away from a dispute until the system of administrative redress has been completed and complied with, so as to give the administrative agency concerned every opportunity to correct its error and dispose of the case. However, there are several exceptions to this rule. [26] | |||||
|
2007-12-18 |
PUNO, CJ. |
||||
| Petitioners' failure to ask the CIR for a reconsideration of the assailed revenue regulations and RMCs is another reason why the instant case should be dismissed. It is settled that the premature invocation of the court's intervention is fatal to one's cause of action. If a remedy within the administrative machinery can still be resorted to by giving the administrative officer every opportunity to decide on a matter that comes within his jurisdiction, then such remedy must first be exhausted before the court's power of judicial review can be sought.[35] The party with an administrative remedy must not only initiate the prescribed administrative procedure to obtain relief but also pursue it to its appropriate conclusion before seeking judicial intervention in order to give the administrative agency an opportunity to decide the matter itself correctly and prevent unnecessary and premature resort to the court. [36] | |||||
|
2007-07-24 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| Without question, petitioner NEA is a GOCC[36] -- a juridical personality separate and distinct from the government, with capacity to sue and be sued.[37] As such GOCC, petitioner NEA cannot evade execution; its funds may be garnished or levied upon in satisfaction of a judgment rendered against it.[38] However, before execution may proceed against it, a claim for payment of the judgment award must first be filed with the COA.[39] | |||||